The issue is getting even darker in the executive agreements of Congress, such as NAFTA. An AEC requires the approval of a simple majority in both houses of Congress. The passage of NAFTA included a 169-page act, S.R. 3450. The first objective of H.R. 3450 was to authorize President Bill Clinton to reach an agreement with Mexico and Canada on January 1, 1994. The second objective of H.R. 3450 was to transfer the content of NAFTA into U.S. law. But H.R.
3450 does not require the president to obtain congressional authorization if the president decides to withdraw the United States from NAFTA. After U.S. negotiators agreed last week with Mexico on the principle of amending some provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. negotiators failed to find common ground with Canada. President Trump has threatened to leave Canada in the cold and abolish NAFTA in favor of a bilateral agreement with Mexico. Given that Canada is the largest U.S. export market in the world, many observers believe that this threat is rightly hollow or, if implemented, extremely dangerous. Regardless of the end of the negotiations, readers may wonder whether a president can decide the fate of NAFTA on his own. On September 30, 2018, the deadline for negotiations between Canada and the United States, an interim agreement was reached between the two countries, thus retaining the trilateral pact when the Trump administration submits the agreement to Congress.  The new name of the agreement was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and came into force on July 1, 2020.   The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO attributed responsibility for sending 700,000 U.S. jobs to Mexico in U.S. production at the time.  After diplomatic negotiations in 1990, the heads of state and government of the three nations signed the agreement on 17 December 1992 in their respective capitals.  The signed agreement had to be ratified by each country`s legislative or parliamentary department. The kick-off of a North American free trade area began with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the governments of U.S. President George H.W.
Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate nafta. Both submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced considerable opposition in both the United States and Canada. The three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 following the addition of two related agreements, the North American Worker Cooperation Agreement (NAALC) and the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC). Suppose the negotiators from the United States, Canada and Mexico are working diligently and quickly to put in place a new agreement. However, if it differs significantly from NAFTA, this agreement can only enter into force with the passage of new laws by Congress, as provided for by the 2015 statute itself. But if an agreement between Congress and the executive branch largely duplicated the impact of a treaty without having to comply with the 2/3 requirement in the Senate, why is it permissible? Should the institution of contractual power, the only mechanism of international agreements, not exclude the executive agreements of Congress, at least for large companies? Why isn`t the idea of an executive agreement in Congress an unacceptable end to the Senate`s 2/3 threshold for contracts? The kick-off of a North American free trade area began with the United States.